Quote:
Originally Posted by That Guy
natural selection's been explained pretty clearly; I really don't think that's the problem.
in brief - through breeding, sometimes a mutation arises. it can be bad (causing retardation or some other undesirable thing). Other times the mutation helps the species to adapt to their environment to give them a better chance at survival. For example, moth wing patterns changing over time to match their surroundings after being imported to a new country (by humans). The new patterns make them harder to see and less likely to be eaten by birds, so more of these "mutated" moths live long enough to breed and pass on an ever higher chance of receiving that beneficial mutation to their offspring.
it really has been explained well and in multiple different ways, but a lot of people get disinterested when it can't be conveyed in three words, or don't feel like taking the time to read through how it works (since one theory is based on other based on another etc and that reading can stack up).
|
You've stated it simply enough. What I don't understand is why there isn't a greater effort to explain it to the masses. You would think that since this ignorance causes so much chagrin in the scientific community that there would be a more user friendly approach. Sometimes I think they prefer to have something to rail against.
Here's a question I always had: Cell theory says that all cells are derived from other cells. There is no spontaneous generation. What about the first instance?